RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01452
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 November 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) as if
selected during promotion cycle 77S9.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied promotion to CMSgt because he declined an assignment to
Headquarters United States Air Force in Europe (Hq USAFE) in March
1976.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits two personal statements, a
copy of his Airman Performance Reports (APRs) from 1961 to 1978,
Letters of Appreciation, education awards, school diplomas and
certificates.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 December 1951 and
was progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant with
a date of rank (DOR) of 1 December 1973. He voluntarily retired from
the Air Force on 1 January 1979, having served 25 years, 6 months and
17 days on active duty.
He was awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period
2 July 1964 to 22 August 1968, and an AFCM, First Oak Leaf Cluster,
for the period 30 August 1968 to 18 August 1969.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial. DPPPWB states based on his DOR to
SMSgt, as well as other minimum criteria, he was eligible for
consideration during cycle 77S9. However, they are unable to verify
if he was considered for promotion to CMSgt. According to AFR 4-20,
Table 35-12, Rule 29, Records Disposition Schedule, promotion history
files are only maintained for a period of 10 years.
The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Although the Board has the right to refuse his request, in all
fairness, his records should be reviewed and a decision made. He had
a very good career during his time on active duty. He always put the
needs of the Air Force first, and always did what it took to get the
job done in a professional manner. He will always feel that not
accepting the position to Hq USAFE in March 1976, not only resulted in
his not being promoted to CMSgt, but was a deciding factor in his
decision to retire from the Air Force.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
application should be denied due to a lack of merit. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 17 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogy, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 May 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Jun 06, w/atchs.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00919
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Based on the addition of the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC), and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), he would have been selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant prior to his retirement since he missed promotion by 1 point or so. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. However, based upon the presumption of regularity in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03303
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: If his decoration had been processed by the suspense date of 2 Oct 05 and had not been lost, he would have met the cut-off score for the promotion to the grade of MSgt for the E7/05 cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s commander provided an explanation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01397
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served 23 years of continuous active duty service during which time he received only one senior noncommissioned officer promotion (SNCO) to master sergeant (MSgt). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650
He retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 03. DPPP states he was time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement based on the new DOR at the time of the 30 Sep 01 report. In this respect, we note that based on the applicant’s original 1 Jun 01 date of rank (DOR) to the grade of senior master sergeant, he was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant prior to his 31 Jul 03 retirement.
He also directed that the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected record. On 5 Dec 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its proper sequence; that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended in Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through 18 Jun 91 and the reason for the report as...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-00215
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00215 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board staff was advised by AFPC/DPPPWB they were unable to comply with the Board’s directive to provide supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03248
DPPPWB advises that Air Force promotion policy dictates the closeout date of a decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) and the signature date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for a cycle in question. Should the decoration be upgraded and the applicant promoted to the grade of MSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 89, DPPPWB recommends the Board adjust the applicant’s retirement date to 31 Aug...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00646
However, the decoration was not updated in the system at the time initial selects were run as evidenced by the score notice dated 17 Mar 81. Also, the MSM (1OLC) was not considered by the promotion board. We noted applicant’s contention that the MSM, 1OLC, was not considered by the promotion board; however, since this award did not close out until 30 Jun 82, and was not awarded until 22 Jul 82, it did not meet the eligibility criteria for cycle 82S9.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00316
In order for a decoration to be eligible to be considered in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date and the Recommendation for Decoration Printout must be before the date of selection for the cycle. From the evidence of record, the applicant’s decoration does not meet the criteria to be considered for promotion consideration for cycle 05E7. The letter from the applicant’s commander is duly noted; however, we do not...
Director I/ Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01544 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (20LC), for the period 10 Jul 91 to 1 Jul 96, be considered in the promotion process for cycle 9737 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). DPPPWB states that there is no tangible evidence the...